Talk:Stifel Nicolaus

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This redirect is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

St. Louis Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Query[edit]

I semi-protected the page following a request on RfPP about problematic edits. Could the anon please say what the problem is with material such as this? I want to make sure that I didn't protect against a legitimate concern. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the anon should voice his concern. I just looked at the article some more, and there are some significant citation issues that need to be resolved since the article has no inline citations and lacks secondary sources. My request for the temporary semi-protection was driven by what appeared to be indiscriminate blanking; if it was not then let's identify the issues and address them. Jminthorne (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attention to this article. It is not an encyclopedia entry -- it is a marketing tool. Wikipedia policy calls for independent sources for material in its articles and images require copyright information. Removal is a stated option to address such issues. The anon entries at the chronological start of the article are promotional and marketing, presenting material right out of marketing materials of the subject. The ip links for those early anon edits geo-locate to the company. You now have protected the company marketing version which repeatedly has been reinserted by what appears to be an associate of the firm who has made no attempt to provide sources for material challenged. I consistently removed the marketing materials and left the encyclopedic portion that is reasonable. Oversight by administrators finally was requested -- given the protection I can not edit further, so the problem is in your hands from here. Any editor with the intent to have this corporate format and undocumented material persist, should have the sources to justify the material. If the associates of the firm want their marketing material retained, it should be written in a conventional encyclopedic format and they should be required to provide citations that meet our guidelines. Images should be properly documented. Oversight or correction was the objective of blanking the portions that needed correction. Policy dictates that inappropriate or questionable material without citations be removed when such citations fail to be provided. Removal of materials without citations and secondary sources is awaited along with pursuit of the image issues. The burden should be reversed here, I'll keep an eye on the developments. 4.247.254.87 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reasonable points, so I've unprotected the article. If you want to continue editing, you might want to look at our sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and our guideline on how to format sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources. Good luck. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The tags you have inserted seem most appropriate to me. I do not want to continue the ping pong game with the editor who keeps reinserting the materials that lack sources and the images that lack copyright data. I have no interest in attempting to find sources for the materials that I do not believe are appropriate for our publication and the few corrections I made to the copy that I feel are appropriate and overcame some of the misrepresentations made in the original, were adequate for an article. Those have been reversed by the editor who is re-entering the unchanged marketing materials. What I would request, is for an administrator to leave a message for the editor, W...mba, recommending reworking the article to conform to our standards and correcting the problems with the images he uploaded or, alerting him to the reality that he is risking the possibility of the material being deleted via editing guidelines. Allowing a short period during which that is accomplished -- while the tags remain -- appeals to me and I shall keep an eye on the article, expecting some improvement before removing the all of the blatant marketing copy again. Please retain you interest in this article. 4.247.254.193 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already left a note for Whartonmba. [1] I should add here for future reference the warning about our 3RR policy, which limits the number of times we're allowed to revert to three in 24 hours; editors violating it may be blocked. Ping me on my talk page if you need more help. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. 4.247.254.193 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Largely Written by the firm Stifel Nicolaus[edit]

This article has apparently been predominantly written by the financial firms employees. Any other contributions are welcome to diffuse the article's position as a public relations piece... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name Change[edit]

I propose that the name of this article should be changed to the parent company's name Stifel Financial and not that of one of its subsidiaries. Someone else also has proposed this in the hidden notes of the article's summary text. I did not look to see who wrote that in there. But as this company consists of more than one subsidiary of which the article is now named after one of them, the article and its title should be broadened to reflect the company rather than simply its subsidiary. Does anyone agree? Or disagree? Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Logo[edit]

Also, the company logo has been taken from the company without the apparent authorizations or permissions. What do we do to fix this? Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

I added a section on the SEC's lawsuit against Stifel, including two sources. But the second one shows up as the same souorce as the first, so there is only one endnote when there should be two. I've gone over and over the thing trying to find where I screwed up but I can't. The two notes are separate in the Edit format but not the final article. Both notes are from the New York Times but with different URLs, authors, titles, and dates. This is the URL of what is supposed to be note 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/business/muni-issuers-could-use-more-sec-protection-fair-game.html?pagewanted=all. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Wlegro (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]